Very telling piece Paul. Thanks for getting that out there as its nice to hear the owners speak openly about their frustrations. Brings light to the entire situation.

Future sounds pretty bleak but it's nice to hear that their priority is to keep the team in Sarnia.

I thought this comment was interesting,

"With all the injuries (last year — over 300 man-games lost), we had to make moves that, in retrospect, I wish we didn't. But at the time everyone thought they were the right move to make"

Sounds like their deficit forced their hand to make a few trades (Kujo) that they'd otherwise not make if they desperately didn't NEED a long playoff run. It's too bad that they got the worst of both worlds - poor playoff success AND losing quality future assets in doing so

Interesting and pretty frank discussion. Dean, my interpretaion of the moves they made were because they were "going for it". I don't think they traded Kujo for financial reasons but thought Spooner was the answer and we all know how that turned out.

Interesting and pretty frank discussion. Dean, my interpretaion of the moves they made were because they were "going for it". I don't think they traded Kujo for financial reasons but thought Spooner was the answer and we all know how that turned out.

They didn't trade Kujo for financial reasons directly but they simply thought Spooner gave them a better chance to win NOW

Found the piece to be very heavy on the economics side of things. Almost sounded like a counter-point to the CHLPA. Very little was said (or asked?) about on ice issues. Were there conditions on what they would be willing to talk about? Was the piece designed to be about the economics of an OHL club?
Would have liked to have heard their reasons for letting Debeneham (sp) go. Also, what is their on ice plan going forward? They state that they have been frustrated with the lack of on ice success, but there is no mention of what they think might remedy that.
And was it really necessary to mention Taylor Hall first, as one of the players fans have had the chance to watch over the years. C'mon

A very interesting article-thanks for sharing. Confirms some things I've thought/heard, but also opened my eyes on a few things.

The mentioning in the article about working something out with the city financially-it will be interesting to see how that works out, in these tough economic times it will be a telling thing how much money city of Sarnia is willing to work out, and the public's support of those type of moves.

Found the piece to be very heavy on the economics side of things. Almost sounded like a counter-point to the CHLPA. Very little was said (or asked?) about on ice issues. Were there conditions on what they would be willing to talk about? Was the piece designed to be about the economics of an OHL club?

More or less, yes. As was stated in the intro, the whole thing came out of the issue about parking. When I spoke with him about his rationale for that, the interview just kept going as these other things came up. There were times when I could have turned the conversation to on-ice stuff (such as with the line Dean Youngblood brought up), but I chose to keep it to the economic side and asking questions about that.

There was some stuff about on ice (a lengthy section where we discussed balancing the need to cut spending with the need to field a competitive team, for example) that got cut for length (the piece is already 1700-1800 words), but in general, I tried to keep it about the economics of the team. I didn't want to get sidetracked too far discussing a "Kujawinski trade" or something and not be able to get back to talking about the money or whatever.

More or less, yes. As was stated in the intro, the whole thing came out of the issue about parking. When I spoke with him about his rationale for that, the interview just kept going as these other things came up. There were times when I could have turned the conversation to on-ice stuff (such as with the line Dean Youngblood brought up), but I chose to keep it to the economic side and asking questions about that.

There was some stuff about on ice (a lengthy section where we discussed balancing the need to cut spending with the need to field a competitive team, for example) that got cut for length (the piece is already 1700-1800 words), but in general, I tried to keep it about the economics of the team. I didn't want to get sidetracked too far discussing a "Kujawinski trade" or something and not be able to get back to talking about the money or whatever.

Good article,they should have done this article BEFORE trying to implement all the changes such as parking etc.Not sure city council will catch on the financial benefit of this team to the city.At the same time management knew what they were signing when they agreed to the RBC center.An organization is only as good as the people around it.I sent off some emails to different personnel at the RBC to try to offer some positive comments to help them make more money with little or no additional expense and never received a single email back.Hard to soar with the eagles when you fly with the turkeys.

This article is more what the owners want to say than anything else. I would have liked to see some of the ‘facts’ challenged.

First off, while I believe most of what was said, there is more to the story than was reported by the owners. They have not divulged their entire financial operations of their business – even if they are losing money recently, the value of the franchise is increasing and in fact the value of the franchise is the real prize.

Another thing I would really like to challenge is the moving of a franchise to the US – over the past several years it is hard to argue that there hasn’t been a franchise looking for a home out of the Metro Toronto area. So much so, the OHL allowed (asked maybe?) one owner to basically own two teams. Maybe now the Steelheads have a home, but that franchise was available to anyone that wanted it with the proper venue to house it in. The fact is that there have been offers – I have no doubt about that. If I am not mistaken you need OHL approval to move a franchise, it is NOT the decision of the owner. They can refuse to sell to someone that WANTS to move the franchise, but I do believe the ultimate decision is that of the OHL. I have a very hard time believing that the OHL would approve such a move due to the quality of the facility, proximity to other teams and the very good support despite very poor performance.

The real issue here is why is the franchise ‘in trouble’? It is because it is poorly run. PERIOD. Seriously, the parking lot issue typifies their incompetence – on and off the ice. You might argue they have had some bad luck, but their off ice performance has NOTHING to do with bad luck and over 15 plus years, there isn’t a team in the OHL that hasn’t had bad luck at one point or another. Would the Observer print a similar article for a restaurant that wasn’t being supported?

While some might have sympathy, the fact that they don’t admit or realize they have done a poor job is the very reason it won’t improve.

This article is more what the owners want to say than anything else. I would have liked to see some of the ‘facts’ challenged.

Fanofdo, your first point is well taken. Franchise value does not come up in the interview.

As for your second concern, I'm not sure how you expect me to verify whether or not Ciccarelli has received offers to keep the team in Sarnia. That stuff isn't public record. At some point, you do have to take their word on that. As for the rest, the OHL isn't going to comment on whether or not they'd allow a hypothetical move to a hypothetical place when the team isn't even actively (according to the owner) selling.

"Why" the franchise is losing money is addressed in that article to a certain extent (from the owners' perspective): they haven't had playoff success to bring in playoff dollars, and they have been running with a budget that was too high and is being lowered. Are there more factors? Probably. That's a big question.

Why they haven't experienced on-ice success wasn't really the point of the article, which was a discussion about economics, as I said earlier in response to Baldy. The two, while often coinciding, aren't always the case. You can have a losing hockey team that makes money, for example. The interview mostly stayed on economic topics.

To answer your final question, if a restaurant that drew ~3000 patrons/ night and had their servings broadcast on the radio and TV and was regularly featured in our paper was willing to talk about their finances, then yes, we probably would run something similar. The Observer does have a weekly business column where we cover issues such as opening and closing businesses.

If you have more issues with my reporting, feel free to send me a private message and I will address them if I can.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't care if you believe Ciccarelli or not, but I do believe this piece to be honestly reported and in depth. Perfect? Absolutely not. But genuine and as well verified as I could make it.

You might argue they have had some bad luck, but their off ice performance has NOTHING to do with bad luck and over 15 plus years, there isn’t a team in the OHL that hasn’t had bad luck at one point or another.

I'm sorry, but this statement couldn't be further from the truth. I highly doubt that the Kitchener Rangers or London Knights or Oshawa Generals have been at the level of financial distress, any time in the last 15 years if not longer, than the Sarnia Sting are now.

Listen to what Rob Ciccarelli is saying in that interview. He does a horrible job of contradicting himself by saying "Well, I can tell you that the Sarnia Sting hockey club, outside of the arena, has lost (about) $1.4 million in the last four years, and we can't continue to do that." and "Our goal has always been, and I've always said, our goal is to break even. We don't need the hockey team to make money. We don't need the arena to make money. (We’re striving) to break even." and then turns around, and in the next breath, and says "We are not threatening to move. That's not our intention. If we don't have an owner, we'll own it."

So, what, then? You're going to continue to throw your money away by putting every last dime you have into a fledgling, hugely underachieving hockey team who the most they have done on the ice in the last 5 years is produce 3 or 4 1st Round NHL'ers? Not to mention the fact that your attendence numbers are embarrassing, because for whatever reason, even with producing those NHL 1st Round Draft Picks, you still somehow can't manage to put butts in the seats. (That one absolutely baffles me. You would think, with that kind of prospect development in their organization, they would be selling out every Saturday night). But despite all that, you're going to continue to play the "loyal to the city until the day they tell us they could care less to have a junior hockey team anymore-role" because, by God, even though people can't possibly see how you'll manage to, you're going to find some way to make it work and turn this sinking ship around.

Now, I would bet you 10 to 1 that the fan base of the Kitchener Rangers or London Knights have not once, in the last 15 years, had to go home at the end of the season worried about whether they'll even still have a team in operation to come to the rink and watch the next year. But anyone who currently has a Sarnia Sting jersey hanging in their closet right now? Well, I'd hold on to that puppy if I were you, because it's going to be a collectors item in about 5 years, when the Sarnia Sting have either relocated or folded.

Fanofdo, your first point is well taken. Franchise value does not come up in the interview.

As for your second concern, I'm not sure how you expect me to verify whether or not Ciccarelli has received offers to keep the team in Sarnia. That stuff isn't public record. At some point, you do have to take their word on that. As for the rest, the OHL isn't going to comment on whether or not they'd allow a hypothetical move to a hypothetical place when the team isn't even actively (according to the owner) selling.

"Why" the franchise is losing money is addressed in that article to a certain extent (from the owners' perspective): they haven't had playoff success to bring in playoff dollars, and they have been running with a budget that was too high and is being lowered. Are there more factors? Probably. That's a big question.

Why they haven't experienced on-ice success wasn't really the point of the article, which was a discussion about economics, as I said earlier in response to Baldy. The two, while often coinciding, aren't always the case. You can have a losing hockey team that makes money, for example. The interview mostly stayed on economic topics.

To answer your final question, if a restaurant that drew ~3000 patrons/ night and had their servings broadcast on the radio and TV and was regularly featured in our paper was willing to talk about their finances, then yes, we probably would run something similar. The Observer does have a weekly business column where we cover issues such as opening and closing businesses.

If you have more issues with my reporting, feel free to send me a private message and I will address them if I can.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't care if you believe Ciccarelli or not, but I do believe this piece to be honestly reported and in depth. Perfect? Absolutely not. But genuine and as well verified as I could make it.

First off, I don't see where I was critical to your reporting. In fact let me say publicly right now, I see more effort from you to vary from the status quo than any previous reporter. I have no issue with your reporting as such, only that I am challenging that more could have been challenged in the article.

It was the owners that brought up finances - it should encompass everything, not just what they want to talk about and what I brought up should be basic knowledge. In fact, most of the world's stock markets are more about the increasing capital value of the asset rather than the dividend (something Mr. Ciccarelli well knows). Many businesses are comprised of several incorporated branches for tax reasons. I don't know the structure of the owner's holdings, only challenging the fact it is possible to have several holdings associated with the team and the arena - if that is the case, you really need to speak to all of the entities, not just a few (including the capital value increase of the asset). I agree that it isn't 'public knowledge', however it is very convenient that they say there are portions that are somewhat 'public'. Again, it is them that are 'crying poverty' (couldn't think of a better phrase), and I get the sense that they are hinting that they could use some help from the community - if they are we need more info.

"Why" the franchise is losing money is addressed in that article to a certain extent (from the owners' perspective): they haven't had playoff success to bring in playoff dollars, and they have been running with a budget that was too high and is being lowered. Are there more factors? Probably. That's a big question.

This is as you say is from the owner’s perspective – my point, and many other’s, is that these guys have “earned their success”. They have run the off ice portion of the business poorly and in fact is a significant part of the reason for dimensioning attendance. The parking lot incident is the worst, but goes to the point, if they had even a bit of understanding they never would have attempted such a stupid move. This is where I challenge you now and before (I understand you are the new guy on the block and have a boss), but why not challenge them? Poorly run off ice activities has NOTHING to do with bad luck injuries.

As for your second concern, I'm not sure how you expect me to verify whether or not Ciccarelli has received offers to keep the team in Sarnia. That stuff isn't public record. At some point, you do have to take their word on that. As for the rest, the OHL isn't going to comment on whether or not they'd allow a hypothetical move to a hypothetical place when the team isn't even actively (according to the owner) selling.

You don’t need their verification – look at the public record. The Steelhead’s franchise has been very available for the past few years, and not for a king’s ransom. If someone really legitimately wanted a franchise and wanted to move it, they could have. Cicarrelli’s are driving this franchise into the ground – and have used this veiled threat more than once. I am pointing out that if there was a decent building available and a willing owner, it would have been done by one of Metro Toronto teams. I am also pointing out that there is far too much support in this city for it to be without a franchise for long. A decently run team will be supported and profitable if it is run by competent owners.

If you have more issues with my reporting, feel free to send me a private message and I will address them if I can.

Nope – Someone posts it here and has a comment, I will comment here. As I stated, I do honestly mean it when I say you have done more than past reporters. I still don’t believe it goes far enough. It goes to your statement, “To answer your final question, if a restaurant that drew ~3000 patrons/ night and had their servings broadcast on the radio and TV and was regularly featured in our paper was willing to talk about their finances, then yes, we probably would run something similar. The Observer does have a weekly business column where we cover issues such as opening and closing businesses.” This is the real issue, this ownership has NEVER been legitimately challenged by the media. The reason is supported by your statement that, “their servings are broadcast on the radio and TV and was regularly featured in our paper.” I maintain that the relationship is too cozy and while you may want to dig deeper, you may have a boss that doesn’t. That’s why I will continue to challenge here.

You don’t need their verification – look at the public record. The Steelhead’s franchise has been very available for the past few years, and not for a king’s ransom. If someone really legitimately wanted a franchise and wanted to move it, they could have.

Just for clarification, Ciccarelli did not put a time table on those offers, and the article doesn't mention one. It's not meant to connect the four-year period they've lost money with the period they have had offers for the team.

I'm sorry, but this statement couldn't be further from the truth. I highly doubt that the Kitchener Rangers or[B] London Knights or Oshawa Generals have been at the level of financial distress, any time in the last 15 years if not longer, than the Sarnia Sting are now.
Listen to what Rob Ciccarelli is saying in that interview. He does a horrible job of contradicting himself by saying "Well, I can tell you that the Sarnia Sting hockey club, outside of the arena, has lost (about) $1.4 million in the last four years, and we can't continue to do that." and "Our goal has always been, and I've always said, [I]our goal is to break even. We don't need the hockey team to make money. We don't need the arena to make money. (We’re striving) to break even." and then turns around, and in the next breath, and says "We are not threatening to move. That's not our intention. If we don't have an owner, we'll own it."

So, what, then? You're going to continue to throw your money away by putting every last dime you have into a fledgling, hugely underachieving hockey team who the most they have done on the ice in the last 5 years is produce 3 or 4 1st Round NHL'ers? Not to mention the fact that your attendence numbers are embarrassing, because for whatever reason, even with producing those NHL 1st Round Draft Picks, you still somehow can't manage to put butts in the seats. (That one absolutely baffles me. You would think, with that kind of prospect development in their organization, they would be selling out every Saturday night). But despite all that, you're going to continue to play the "loyal to the city until the day they tell us they could care less to have a junior hockey team anymore-role" because, by God, even though people can't possibly see how you'll manage to, you're going to find some way to make it work and turn this sinking ship around.

Now, I would bet you 10 to 1 that the fan base of the Kitchener Rangers or London Knights have not once, in the last 15 years, had to go home at the end of the season worried about whether they'll even still have a team in operation to come to the rink and watch the next year. But anyone who currently has a Sarnia Sting jersey hanging in their closet right now? Well, I'd hold on to that puppy if I were you, because it's going to be a collectors item in about 5 years, when the Sarnia Sting have either relocated or folded.

Go back and look at London's record and attendance before the Hunter's bought them. I think 3 wins for the season. I was at that arena more than once that year and there weren't many fans, crappy arena and no light at the end of the tunnel - they ones that were there were worried sick about the franchise. Be glad you didn't bet.

Plenty of additional people went to games to see Stamkos and Yakupov. Again look at the attendance records, there is a spike to compensate the year over year decline in attendance. A decently run team sells consistent season's tickets year to year.

Just for clarification, Ciccarelli did not put a time table on those offers, and the article doesn't mention one. It's not meant to connect the four-year period they've lost money with the period they have had offers for the team.

Noted, however, as mentioned the Steelhead franchise situation is very public knowledge and could have been brought up to comment on when the relocation issue was brought up.

Go back and look at London's record and attendance before the Hunter's bought them. I think 3 wins for the season. I was at that arena more than once that year and there weren't many fans, crappy arena and no light at the end of the tunnel - they ones that were there were worried sick about the franchise. Be glad you didn't bet.

Plenty of additional people went to games to see Stamkos and Yakupov. Again look at the attendance records, there is a spike to compensate the year over year decline in attendance. A decently run team sells consistent season's tickets year to year.

The London Knights did have something prior to that dismal 3-win season in 1995 that the Sarnia Sting are still trying to obtain: an appearance in the OHL Finals. And in the Sting's case, an appearance deep into the playoffs. The Knights also had a loyal fan base prior to that horrid year of 1995 as well. Now, I will admit that that the presence of that loyal fan base was threatened by the poor ownership during the "Spiderknight"/"Knightmare" era. But it was still there. I'm not saying that the Sting don't probably have a very loyal fan base themselves, but I do think it could be even stronger than it is.

You mentioned that the there was no light at the end of the tunnel for the Knights until the Hunters bought the Knights. That's not true. Just 4 short years after that dismal 1995 season, in 1999, the London Knights made it to the OHL Finals. The Hunters bought the Knights a year later in 2000. And obviously, we know the success that has followed since then.

Look at the Sting's history. In 18 years of existence, the Sting have made it past the first round of the playoffs once. And in the last 8 years, the Sting have missed the playoffs entirely in back-to-back seasons on two separate occasions.

You're right when you mention that a decently-run team consistently sells season tickets on a year to year basis. But a decently-run team also consistently sells individual tickets on a game to game basis. A decently-run team consistently makes it out of the first round of the playoffs on a year to year basis. Not to mention shows improvement and progression towards making it to the second round of the playoffs for a couple years, then makes it to the conference finals, then the OHL Finals and ultimately the Memorial Cup. The Sting don't have any prior history of success and they aren't showing any signs of having any "light at the end of the tunnel" soon themselves.

Cicarelli shows us in that interview that can't even manage to efficiently coordinate a parking system.

I don't think he needs help from the city. I think he needs help from another hockey executive or someone else in the front office who can help him juggle all of the "balls" (the ability to coordinate an efficient parking system, the ability to boost attendance numbers by efficiently bringing fans through the turnstiles at the gates each and every home game, managing to ice a team that shows improvement and progress towards making it out of the first round of the playoffs on a consistent basis) that he's got flying up in the air all at once these days.

This article is more what the owners want to say than anything else. I would have liked to see some of the ‘facts’ challenged.

First off, while I believe most of what was said, there is more to the story than was reported by the owners. They have not divulged their entire financial operations of their business – even if they are losing money recently, the value of the franchise is increasing and in fact the value of the franchise is the real prize.

Another thing I would really like to challenge is the moving of a franchise to the US – over the past several years it is hard to argue that there hasn’t been a franchise looking for a home out of the Metro Toronto area. So much so, the OHL allowed (asked maybe?) one owner to basically own two teams. Maybe now the Steelheads have a home, but that franchise was available to anyone that wanted it with the proper venue to house it in. The fact is that there have been offers – I have no doubt about that. If I am not mistaken you need OHL approval to move a franchise, it is NOT the decision of the owner. They can refuse to sell to someone that WANTS to move the franchise, but I do believe the ultimate decision is that of the OHL. I have a very hard time believing that the OHL would approve such a move due to the quality of the facility, proximity to other teams and the very good support despite very poor performance.

The real issue here is why is the franchise ‘in trouble’? It is because it is poorly run. PERIOD. Seriously, the parking lot issue typifies their incompetence – on and off the ice. You might argue they have had some bad luck, but their off ice performance has NOTHING to do with bad luck and over 15 plus years, there isn’t a team in the OHL that hasn’t had bad luck at one point or another. Would the Observer print a similar article for a restaurant that wasn’t being supported?

While some might have sympathy, the fact that they don’t admit or realize they have done a poor job is the very reason it won’t improve.

The "Steelheads" might have been available, but this was a last year thing. Yes, Melnyk was "allowed" to own two teams, but the purpose was to get the Majors into the Hershey Centre, and as a result move the IceDogs out. The final "hope" was that hosting the Memorial Cup would be the catalyst to boost attendance numbers and put the team over the top. When that failed to materialize last year, the team was finally put up for sale.

Unfortunately, so many fail to grasp the lease situation at the Hershey Centre. If it was so "easy" to move the team, it would have happened by now. One year wonder, Nick Ricci, hoped to buy and move the team to NF, but we all know how that worked out. Unless someone with serious dough, wants to throw a good chunk of money at the City of Mississauga, that team goes no where. Buying out what's left of the lease will cost serious money and unless an owner thinks they can re-coup that money fast in a new market, its not happening.

Also, there is, supposedly, a clause in the lease that there will be OHL equivalent or better hockey at Hershey for the duration of the lease, so unless another tenant is found (AHL, etc.) that causes an issue as well. The reason Melnyk was able to move out the IceDogs was because he was moving in the Majors to assume the lease. There were rumours last season that the last year of Brampton's lease would be paid out and the Battalion would move into Hershey, with the Majors being sold and moved to another market. That did not happen, but already this season, there are rumours swirling that Kerr and the new group have only committed to three years and then can move the club if things don't improve drastically. We all know from history, the attendance issue isn't going to improve, but by waiting three more years, the pay-out on the lease will at least be tolerable.

The bottom line is that Kerr will lose less money leaving the team where it is for three years and then paying it out, then he will paying out the lease now (for 6 more years). And...if it was that easy to move that team, it clearly would have happened by now.

This maybe isn't the right part of the forum for this, but it comes up so, so often, and others don't seem to understand the implications of that lease and how much leverage the City of Mississauga has in this whole situation.

I will end by saying that I do not know this information definitively, but I have been "around" long enough and been part of enough conversations over the years, to know that this pretty much sums up the situation.

This is all pretty boring. Let's talk hockey, specifically the win tonight. I thought the boys played really well, and thanks, Brett Ritchie for taking a stupid penalty and finally helping us win a game! The success of the 'Nic' line was mentioned in the Observer and even in the program tonight. Did Beaulieu keep them together tonight? Of course not. Only time was as the 2nd power play unit and Nikandrov scored. Anyway, it was a good game and first win at home. Let's hope it continues tomorrow.

I apologize if this was already stated, but STOP THE NEGITIVITY ALREADY. PdashOw great job on the article.

I understand people have been frustrated, but all everybody does is complain about everything. I am surprised there are no negative comments from last nights game.

Anyways, as for the game last night, the boys played really good. Still sloppy at times though. But they got the win and that is all that matters.

Agreed,Great job on the article.yes they were sloppy but that Niagara team didnt stop all night,Basso did look lost last night again.We have an awesome battle going in the western conference.Good to see the rookies getting some ice time and on the score sheet.Nice to see a good crowd also and hearing the fans getting into it.Go Sting

Basso looked a little better today.stupid penality with 6 min to go.Boys played well today.Nick goldy had a beautiful goal today.he is going to be exciting to watch as time goes on.Soo goalie played great.our guys did a great job.lots of chances.Go sting

Great weekend by the Sting...sure there were some miscues, but no one ever said this was a memorial cup team lol....that said there does seem to be systems in place this year with some nice breakout plays and special team set ups...and for sure the one thing that I notice more than anything else is that each player stands up for one another
Here are some thoughts on some random playersGalchenyuk - really becoming a complete player, I'm not always a fan of using star power on the penalty kill but with #94 i have no issue...he's really stepped it up in the last few games and I suspect he will really become dominant and hit his stride in the coming monthsDeAngelo - I cant stop raving about his offensive instincts and natural smooth style of skating and today he added that quick release to his shot...sure he gets caught up ice, but gives an honest effort in hussle back (in unlike last season a few defensively responsible forwards have filled in - notably Sarault)Goldobin - a mix of Galy and Yaky in that once he gets adjusted to the ohl he has some of the flair of Nail, but maybe a more complete game like AlexDundas - really like how he has picked up his game.....looks like he can be more than just a heart and soul type player while still delivering on that endChapman - I know he's more of a bit player at this point but he has really developed in the past year...I'm under the understanding that much of it was conditioning and a regiment he undertook with Gary Roberts

Also regarding some of the discussion from above, I am firmly anti Beaulieu and sting management in general, but the article was well done and well focused. Sometimes we as fans get too caught up in the moment and don't enjoy the moment. Heck i'm a Spits fan and even there when we were memorial cup powerhouses sometimes I'd hear ''yeah ok, but what about next year"....so for at least this weekend lets enjoy the moment